Our Gemara discusses the concept of “dichui”, a disqualification in eligibility, and how it affects prohibitions. The concept of “dichui” is more commonly used throughout the Talmud in regards to sacrifices and positive Commandments. That is, if a dedicated sacrifice becomes ineligible for whatever reason and then reverts back to eligibility, is it still able to be offered as a sacrifice. The possible problem is that there was a period in time where it was ineligible, and perhaps that degrades its sanctity. It also is discussed in regard to objects of mitzvah (see Avodah Zara 47a and Succah 33a), such as if one of the four species were rendered unfit due to being cut at the tip and then it regrew. 

Our Gemara discusses a situation of something that was prohibited, became permissible, and reverted back to its prohibition. Does the prohibition resume or once it was removed it remains null. Our Gemara concludes that by prohibitions, there is no “dichui”, and thus even if neutralized but the prohibition returns, it becomes active again.

There are two puzzling midrashim regarding mitzvos in the world to come. In Niddah (61b), Rav Yosef declares that the mitzvos will no longer be binding in the world to come, after the resurrection of the dead (see Tosafos). 

Various Jewish thinkers grapple with this teaching, trying to make sense of it. Is this an allegory? Does it refer to a particular moment in time? Could it really be true that the Torah, which represents the absolute will of God, won’t be eternal in this manner?

Pardes Yosef (Vayikra 11:7) discusses this issue at length and uses the rules of “dichui” to explain this idea about mitzvos in the world to come. Since we hold there is “dichui” by positive Commandments but not by prohibitions, we could understand the Midrash as follows. In the messianic future world after the resurrection of the dead, prohibitions will remain but positive commandments will not. This will not represent a changing of the Torah, but rather a function of the Torah. If the person died at that moment, he was free from mitzvah obligations, so when he gets revived, they are subject to the rules of “dichui”. 

If we understand such a future world in a technical sense, we also should try to make sense of it philosophically. What does it really mean, to live in a world where the prohibitions still exist but the positive Commandments do not? On a simple level, a negative prohibition is not an expression of devotion to God, but rather a red line, something harmful and immoral that the Torah is protecting us from. Having said that, it makes sense that once prohibited it should always be prohibited, even a society or our relation to God dramatically changes. Morality, especially in the sense of abstaining, should be relatively constant. However, the forms of devotion and service of God, which are represented in the positive Commandments could vary greatly depending on the spiritual level. Perhaps at that point, in a state of constant attachment and devotion to God, commandments will not be needed in the same way.